Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

People v. Jackson

People v. Jackson, 20 A.D.2d 918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1964)

Type
Opinion
Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1964-04-20
Topic
general

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 23, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of selling and possession of narcotic drugs (P’enal Law, § 1751, subd. 1; § 1751-a, subd. 1), and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although it was improper for the detective on cross-examination to testify that he recognized as defendant’s trade-mark the tinfoil covering of the packages which defendant had handed to another witness (because from such testimony it could have been inferred that defendant had been guilty of other similar crimes), we are of the opinion that the error should be disregarded for the following reasons: (1) the error was not that of the District Attorney; (2) the Trial Judge gave prompt, clear and adequate instruction to the jury to disregard the detective’s remark and directed the witness not to volunteer testimony; (3) the error was confined to this single, isolated instance; and (4) the error could not have prejudiced the jury in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (Code Grim. Pro., § 542; People V. Broady, 5 N Y 2d 500; People v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed People v. Jackson. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered March 23, 1962 after a jury trial, convicting him of selling and possession of narcotic drugs (P’enal Law, § 1751, subd. 1; § 1751-a, subd. 1), and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. Although it was improper for the detective on cross-examination to testify that he recognized as defendant’s trade-mark the tinfoil covering of the packages which defendant had handed to another witness (because from such testimony it could have been inferred that defendant had been guilty of other similar crimes), we are of the opinion that the error should be disregarded for the following reasons: (1) the error was not that of the District Attorney; (2) the Trial Judge gave prompt, clear and adequate instruction to the jury to disregard the detective’s remark and directed the witness not to volunteer testimony; (3) the error was confined to this single, isolated instance; and (4) the error could not have prejudiced the jury in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt (Code Grim. Pro., § 542; People V. Broady, 5 N Y 2d 500; People v. Maries, 6 N Y 2d 67). The other errors claimed are without merit. Beldoek, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.